9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - In the course of stay hearing the Bench was satisfied prima facie that the appellant was engaged in preparation of ready mix concrete (RMC). While carrying out such dominant objects other ancillary and incidental activities were also carried out. Following arguments were reiterated by ld. Counsel in the course of hearing :- ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing sold under composite works contracts. Because the appellant has considered its transactions as works contract cannot be the basis to hold that the contracts of the appellant were not sale contracts. The appellant's conduct cannot be the basis for deciding whether the transaction is sale or service. Since there is no estoppels against law, the issue has to be decided on its own merit and not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service. (v) The Commissioner has wrongly held that the provisions of the extended period have rightly been invoked in this matter. The appellant was under the bona fide belief that its activities were not taxable. The Commissioner has failed to appreciate that there was no intention of evading tax as it had started paying the service tax with effect from 1-6-2007 suo mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppears to be a sales contract instead of a service contract. In absence of cogent evidence to the effect of providing taxable service, primary and dominant object of the contract throws light that contract between the parties was to supply ready mix concrete (RMC) but not to provide any taxable service. Finance Act, 1994 not being a law relating to commodity taxation but services are declared to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
